Thanks to Emilie Mouret for the French translation, and Jean-Pierre Soares, Alfred Caron, and Jérôme Guigue for their hospitality.

On Oct 31, Tobias Still and Michel Chevalier took part in a debate organized by Catalina Lozano, along with Stephen Wright of the Biennale de Paris:"art as political possibility beyond representation"Salle Michel JourniacUniversité Paris 175015 Paris

A one-and a half hour discussion involving members of the audience followed the initial presentations by the panel members, with over 70 people in attendance.

Some of the topics addressed: concept(s) of representation in art versus representation in politics, the possibility of concrete political approaches in art, the nature of capitalism today, the XVth Biennale de Paris and the experiences of participating artists.

At the risk of simplifying somewhat, one could say that divergent options emerged in the course of debate: on the one hand, a project for a representational art within a scheme of radical non-representational (non-parliamentarian) politics; on the other, a non-representational (agitation supplanting contemplation) art that is not yet ready to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," and thereby accepts some degrees of delegation and representation in politics. The relevance of public art institutions (worth fighting over, or irrelevant?) was also duly considered and debated. Finally, this bdp-related question was raised: what does it mean when the practice of artists who leave the artworld is highlighted in a discourse that operates within the art context?— is this not a way of affirming (despite appearences) art, nevertheless, and if so: what kind of aesthetic dispositions are thereby prevailing? What is the "residue" that makes this non-art artistically-relevant to some nonetheless? Or, how does one 'get into' art in the first place, does leaving art mean one is in the 'real world', and is this option available to all, bearing the same or similar consequences?